Comments on: Who in their right mind would offer Carlos Beltran arbitration?

By: jjschiller

jjschiller — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:35:38 +0000

This rule only applies to players who aren’t yet eligible for free-agency. This is because these players can use only players in their service time bracket as compararables.

By: jjschiller

jjschiller — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:33:27 +0000

Actually, no. The rules are different for players who opt for arbitration rather than pursue free agency.

Free-agent eligible players can be offered less than the 80% minimum, and less than the 70% minimum from 1 year prior.

Also, non-free-agent eligible players are granted non-guaranteed contracts and can be released at various points with 30 or 45 days of compensation pay. Free-agent eligible players who go through arbitration are granted guaranteed contracts and if they are released, are entitled to the full-sum of their contracts.

By: Chris Fiorentino

Chris Fiorentino — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:12:44 +0000

I believe the rule is that you can offer no lower than 80% of last year’s contract. So the lowest he could be offered would be around $14 or $15 million.

By: dan1111

dan1111 — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:00:40 +0000

Actually, once a player accepts arbitration, the player becomes team-controlled, and the process is exactly the same. Any discussion of it that I have seen assumes that the player’s salary won’t go down.

By: dan1111

dan1111 — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:51:10 +0000

Why offer arbitration when you can sign him to another 7 year deal?

By: jjschiller

jjschiller — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:49:14 +0000

There’s no guarantee that he gets a raise in arbitration. Free agent arbitration is not the same animal as arbitration of team-controlled players.

You say a number, the agent says a number, and the arbiter picks one. You don’t have to peg the players value exactly, you just have to be more reasonable than he is. Granted, these things tend to favor the player, but it wouldn’t be hard to find convincing numbers that show Beltran isn’t an $18m player.

I actually doubt that Boras would even submit a number as high as $18m, for fear that the team could submit any integer greater than 1 and it be seen as more fair.

Besides, once he accepts, you can negotiate with him rather than see the arbiter. Or, you can trade him. If you just acquired him via trade, he has no 10 and 5 rights with you. And once his contract expires, and he chooses arbitration, he has no no-trade clause to protect him, either.

By: seanmk

seanmk — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:47:52 +0000

if anything it curtails mets from trading him since they get less value back. Thus why they are willing to pay his entire salary to get a good prospect back. The principle of being able to offer abritration and being a type A free agent is all that matters.

By: CJ

CJ — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:41:26 +0000

if it’s for example, 18 for one year vs 30 over 3 years and I were Beltran I’d glandly accept arb for the guaranteed money up front and take the chance that I play well enough to earn another 2-3 year deal the next year for better than 6 a year. Some AL team would surely pay him at least 6 a year to DH in a couple years.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:39:57 +0000

When you compare it to what Werth and Crawford got, then look at their results for this season, Beltran for 1 season at 18 mill isn’t all THAT crazy for a possible contender is it?

By: uyf1950

uyf1950 — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:35:16 +0000

Well probably Omar Minaya if he were still in charge of the Mets.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:33:29 +0000

Arbitration for Beltran could yield a one year deal, although probably high, it would be preferable to a 2 or 3 year deal at a lower rate. He is really good for a short period of time more than likely. 18 million for 1 season or 30 + million for ____ amount of time? I’m thinking that’s what he’s got in mind.